[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220517141404.578d188a.max@enpas.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 14:14:04 +0200
From: Max Staudt <max@...as.org>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and
can_skb_headroom_valid to skb.c
On Tue, 17 May 2022 13:51:57 +0200
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote:
> After looking through drivers/net/can/Kconfig I would probably phrase
> it like this:
>
> Select CAN devices (hw/sw) -> we compile a can_dev module. E.g. to
> handle the skb stuff for vcan's.
>
> Select hardware CAN devices -> we compile the netlink stuff into
> can_dev and offer CAN_CALC_BITTIMING and CAN_LEDS to be compiled into
> can_dev too.
>
> In the latter case: The selection of flexcan, ti_hecc and mcp251xfd
> automatically selects CAN_RX_OFFLOAD which is then also compiled into
> can_dev.
>
> Would that fit in terms of complexity?
IMHO these should always be compiled into can-dev. Out of tree drivers
are fairly common here, and having to determine which kind of can-dev
(stripped or not) the user has on their system is a nightmare waiting to
happen.
Max
Powered by blists - more mailing lists